Propaganda vs. truth

I know most anti Bush/anti war/anti right wing agenda articles posted here are taken as gospel (and yes some have earned that by being right). But I
want to know are there any pro Bush/pro right wing articles out there that you would not consider propaganda? And these articles can be on
anything...the war, the economy, homeland security, etc.

I'm not saying that liberal people like me are always right! But most of all, everything has an hidden agenda..
Yes, some people here are very very of the right, conservatist and pro-war, they wanna blow up the earth if the USA stays strong...and of course
religion...the christ, the lord is like always behind them and I hope you know the bible because it's always a great argument on ATS, if the bible
says so, then it's good

I was beign sarcastic, but really...there are MORE of the right than left here on ATS, so you won't feel alone! I'm sure you will have a great time
arguing, as for me, I give up!

I have to agree. While I will always look for other sources, and Drudge always has a slant, his site has plenty of links to other news sources, and
he reports on stories that other organizations don't.

It is the one 'right-wing' news site that I visit at least once a day, as he does a good job of providing a variety of topics.

By virtue of pointing out bad decisions, bad policy and negative outcomes, an article is not Left Wing. But, by supporting those same transgressions
and coming to positive conclusions, an article is Right Wing.
I would suggest you read Pat Buchanan; there are several threads quoting his pieces on ATS ( I've quoted him several times ). He's a staunch
Conservative in the sense of the term before it was equated to Fascist, and rightfully so.

I understand what you mean thatsjustweird....the fact that any article or source that doesn't say what you want is propaganda, yet anything
you see that does say what you want cannot be propaganda. It's not just left-wingers that do that, this process is followed by many on both
sides.

Take 9/11 for example. The "Popular Mechanics" article debunks many theories, so the usual suspects that don't like the President attack "Popular
Mechanics" as a CIA front, or elitist media or some such. Then comes along an article on Rense debunking the debunk. The usual suspects who happen to
like the President then attack Rense as a credible site.

Both sides act as if they know with absolute certainty what happened, how, and by whom. When in reality we don't know what happened. How many
different groups have been accused of masterminding the plot? How many different "secret" methods of destruction have been talked about? A friggin'
lot.

Yet the "official" story is embraced by a lot of Republicans and really most people in general - in spite of the many peculiarities that happened
on that day. On the other hand you have people that will grasp at any kind of strawman from any kind of ridiculous source (in spite of the facts)
simply to justify that the war criminal, Neo-Con Bush was the sole perpetrator. It's kind of funny to watch people going in circles ad nauseum
arguing things that there's no way any of us proles could possibly know.

The minute you start taking everything at face value and accepting things as true just because it fits your agenda, you're going to be subject to the
manipulation of propagandists.

I consider any article that says free elections will defeat the insurgency in Iraq to be propaganda either that or the author is a fox news zombie.
I consider any article by extremists on either side of the political spectrum to be propaganda.
Mayabe the more extreme people political views are dumber they are.

It is simply information delivered in a manner so as to advocate a particular belief/philosophy/view, there is nothing requiring it to be true or
false.

So when you call something propaganda, you are only stating that the information has been displayed in a manner that favors a certain view, and that
is not enough to say whether something is true or false.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.